5 single space pages report for management course
ness1613
lean_and_six_sigma.docxLean or Six Sigma?
by Pete Abilla on July 6, 2010
|
|
People often ask “which is better, Lean or Six Sigma”?
My response to such either/or questions is “both”. The question is flawed because it fails to recognize their shared and common history and influence on each other. Also, people who ask this question are often in the “tools” mindset and fail to consider the principles behind the tools used in each of these powerful business improvement methodologies.
[callout title=Is Lean or Six Sigma Right For You?]Rather than asking which of these methodologies is right for your company, try thinking about what the fundamental needs of your company are.
Consider whether your challenges are in the area of leadership; is it in cost reduction? is it in the area of producing faster and with better quality? is it providing better service and a better customer experience?
Given the answers to these questions, then consider the unique differences and commonalities between Lean and Six Sigma and decide which is right for your company – it could be both fully or partly, one or the other fully or partly, or neither. You decide what is right for your organization.[/callout]
Let me know briefly share some history and fundamental concepts of both Lean and Six Sigma.
Brief History on Lean Thinking
Lean was born of the Toyota Production System (TPS), and is often associated with front line improvement and concepts originally for manufacturing. But, Lean has been widely applied to areas outside of manufacturing for many years.
Notable companies that actively apply Lean are Amazon.com, Apple, Google, Patagonia, many Hospitals and Healthcare organizations, various e-commerce companies, and many more.
The central ideas of Lean Management include Just-in-Time and Jidoka, or autonomation: the concept of taking the efficiency of machines and equipping them with the human intelligence to prevent, predict or detect errors. Tools such as 5S, Kanban, standard work and visual control, are favored by practitioners of Lean who are driven by the desire to remove waste and the principle of the continual search for the “better way” to add value for customers. Kaizen events (a way to implement big improvements quickly by focusing on a specific part of a process) are quite often chosen as the vehicle to implement these concepts and tools.
Brief History of Six Sigma
Speaking generally, Six Sigma is statistically based, with defined execution process and robust analytical tools for identifying and reducing variation in a process. Engineers and scientifically-grounded people who identify with the mathematical precision and logic of its approach often favor it.
[callout title=On a Personal Note]Having interviewed and hired many former General Electric (GE) employees, I cannot remember one that was happy working there. Often, they would say that GE “is a great place to come from, but not work at”. When I asked “why”, they then cited the fact that they were “forced” to comply with adopting Six Sigma.[/callout]
This approach was pioneered at Motorola and then crafted into the management infrastructure at General Electric where this management methodology became an engine for widespread improvement.
The three key elements of Six Sigma are its statistical tools, the Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC) process and the certification (using a system of colored belts derived from the martial arts) of individuals.
In the next post in this series of Lean and Six Sigma, I’ll share the following:
Lean and Six Sigma: A Common History
|
|
Both the Toyota Production System (Lean) and Six Sigma approaches owe their origins to a common body of work. Statistical Process Control (SPC), developed by American engineer and statistician Walter A Shewart, is one of the foundations of lean. It is also the basis for much of the Six Sigma methodology. The other lean foundation, Total Quality Control, was developed by Dr. W. Edwards Deming and applied by him in both the United States and Japan.
These two founding themes were embraced by Taichi Ohno, who is broadly acknowledged as the father of the Toyota Production System. Shigeo Shingo—who is well known for taking concepts of zero defect production, Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) and Toyota Production System to a broader audience.
Excited by the simplicity and elegance of process control and the need to manage production efficiently, and driven by the need in postwar Japan to fully realize the “less is more” principle, Toyota developed TPS as a way to achieve previously unheard of levels of productivity, quality, and flexibility with minimal investment.
Aside from the shared history of both Lean and Six Sigma, both also share a common philosophy: Lean and Six Sigma both believe in systematically solving the problems that affect the customer.
The way Lean and Six Sigma happen in application is through the use the DMAIC and PDCA/A3 Framework, which I’ll discuss in the next series of posts.
Lean and Six Sigma: PDCA and DMAIC Comparison
|
|
Integrating or reconciling the PDCA framework from Lean and DMAIC from Six Sigma is the topic of this post.
Since both methodologies and frameworks share a common history, it is no surprise that integrating their respective frameworks was not difficult to do.
Below is my attempt at exactly that. Below the PDCA and DMAIC comparison chart, I’ll explain some big and some subtle differences.
Now, on to some differences between DMAIC and PDCA:
Differences Between PDCA and DMAIC
Visually, PDCA has 4 steps, while DMAIC has 5. But, it’s not just 5 steps, but 5 steps and tollgates in between each phase. A tollgate is where the project team or team leader presents his or her findings in the current phase and the steering committee will either approve the project to move to the next phase or not.
A big difference between PDCA and DMAIC is the corporate infrastructure required. Six Sigma and the DMAIC methodology in which its work is carried out, requires a steering committee, tollgates, a champion, and a project sponsor.
While all those might be good, given the right context, the organizational burden on a company is real because it requires up-front investment of time, resources, and attention.
On the other hand, the PDCA framework of Lean is completed many, many times without much hoopla or fanfare. Indeed, the PDCA framework of Lean allows for the involvement of everybody, whereas DMAIC of Six Sigma requires specialized and trained people, often called Black Belts, Green Belts, or Master Black Belts.
There are no belts in Lean; the mindset of Lean and the tools it uses to carry out its work is highly accessible to everybody – no belt required. No barriers to entry or barriers to participate, just some training, ongoing training, and a lot of hands-on doing.
So, in our compare and contrast of PDCA versus DMAIC, they are quite similar, except for the organizational infrastructure required in Six Sigma.
Because of the differences I note above, the benefits of Lean and the PDCA framework is often heralded because of its speed and velocity. This is true, because there is no organizational overhead and improvements are made – many, many small improvements – daily.
It’s Your Turn
Given the context and the company and the needs of the organization, consider the differences and the commonalities between Lean and Six Sigma. Where one might meet your needs, the other might not be right for you. You decide.
Lean Six Sigma: Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) and A3
|
|
Compared to the DMAIC Framework of Six Sigma, Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) in Lean Thinking is much simpler, yet incredibly powerful. Let me explain each step in the PDCA Framework 1 .
Plan
Recognize an opportunity and plan a change.
Do
Test the change. Carry out a small-scale study.
Check
Review the test, analyze the results and identify what you’ve learned.
Act
Take action based on what you learned in the Check step: If the change did not work, go through the cycle again with a different plan. If you were successful, incorporate what you learned from the test into wider changes. Use what you learned to plan new improvements, beginning the cycle again.
PDCA is meant to be applied as a cycle: continually testing your hypothesis, learning, and then trying a new way of operating. Visually, it looks like this:
Continuing the PDCA Cycle has two important unsaid components:
1. It’s okay to make a mistake – but a very measured mistake
2. It’s okay to try new things – but learn and be surgical in the approach
The Toyota A3 Report
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) is, in itself, already simple and practical. To add a level of discipline to it, PDCA is often manifested in an A3 Report.
A3, as practiced at Toyota, is the discipline and the output of PDCA. A3 is technically a paper size – 11 x 17 – but there is a level of the A3 that quite powerful and goes beyond the size of the paper.
The A3 Report forces discipline in our thinking and also allows for a venue to share our findings on one sheet of paper.
Here is a downloadable A3 Report Example . Read through each section – the simplicity is deceptive. Creating an A3 is actually very difficult work, but quite a learning experience and very effective.
In the next post in the Lean and Six Sigma series, I’ll show how to practically integrate the PDCA framework of Lean with the DMAIC framework of Six Sigma.
